The petitioner challenged his dismissal from police service due to repeated absence from duty. The Court held that as discipline is paramount for police, habitual absence without cause renders the officer unfit for service, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.14043 of 1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.14043 of 1994 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 22.11.2012
Ex.Const. Hari Kishan
PETITIONER
VERSUS
State of Haryana and others
RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri Harish Nain, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.K.Kwatra, Senior D.A.G. Haryana.
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner faced proceedings on account of repeated absence from duty which charges were established and after following the process of law, the petitioner was dismissed from service.
The solitary grievance that has been agitated before this Court that the petitioner was appointed on 29.9.1975 and at the time of his first misconduct which occurred in the year 1990, he had rendered about 15 years of service with unblemished service record without any complaint.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the only cause that he has espoused in this petition is that according to Rule 16.2(1) of the Punjab
C.W.P. No.14043 of 1994 -2-
Police Rules, his length of service ought to have been taken into consideration while formulating an opinion about the punishment awarded to him which in this case is dismissal from service. Reliance has been placed on a decisions rendered by this Court in Randhir Singh v. Dy.Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. and another 2005(1) S.L.R. 259 and Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2009(1) R.S.J. 62.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 S.C.C. 228 has held as follows :-
“9. This Court had occasion to deal with the cases of overstay by persons belonging to disciplined forces. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh (1996 (1) SCC 302), the employee was a police constable and it was held that an act of indiscipline by such a person needs to be dealt with sternly. It is for the employee concerned to show how that penalty was disproportionate to the proved charges. No mitigating circumstance has been placed by the appellant to show as to how the punishment could be characterized as disproportionate and/or shocking. It has been categorically held that in a given case the order of dismissal from service cannot be faulted. In the instant case the period is more than 300 days and that too without any justifiable reason. That being so the order of removal from service suffers from no infirmity. The High Court was not justified in interfering with the same. The order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but under the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.”
C.W.P. No.14043 of 1994 -3-
I have considered the contentions raised before this Court. The respondents have given details of the absence from duty which the petitioner resorted to during his tenure of 16 years 19 days which are as follows :-
Primarily, the petitioner has been charged for absence for the period from 17.9.1990 to 22.10.1990, 24.10.1990 to 9.11.1990 and 5.12.1990 to
C.W.P. No.14043 of 1994 -4-
11.1.1991. The facts also reveal that the petitioner was deputed to a Refresher Course on 5.12.1990, but he failed to report for the same. The conduct of the petitioner thus can be termed to be incorrigible and unfit for retention in government service since he habitually absented himself and defied the authorities.
In Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that men in uniform are expected to be disciplined. Their misconduct therefore, cannot be treated leniently. If the conduct of the petitioner is to be seen, then during the period from 15.11.1990 to 11.1.1991, he remained absent on three different occasions without any justifiable cause. This is thus a continued misconduct which indicates incorrigibility and complete unfitness in Police Force.
In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner and take a lenient view. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner do not enhance his case because in those judgments, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat have not been taken into consideration.
The petition is dismissed.
November 22, 2012 GD
(MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE
WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether ten years of unblemished service would mitigate the punishment of dismissal for habitual absence from duty.
Whether dismissal of a police officer for incorrigible absence is disproportionate to the charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (2005) 13 S.C.C. 228Explained¶17
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Singh (1996 (1) SCC 302)Explained¶18
Randhir Singh v. Dy.Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range, Ambala Cantt. and another 2005(1) S.L.R. 259Referred¶15
Dhan Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2009(1) R.S.J. 62Referred¶15
Hari Kishan
State of Haryana
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
